Smith v. Hayden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that, because the parties were liv- ing apart and had no physical or volatile interactions since they started living separately, the respondent did not pose a credible threat to the petitioner
• concluding that, because the parties were liv- ing apart and had no physical or volatile interactions since they started living separately, the respondent did not pose a credible threat to the petitioner
• observing that an overt threat is not required to prove that a respondent posed a credible threat and that a court may consider events outside the 180-day timeframe in making its determination
• observing that an overt threat is not required to prove that a respondent posed a credible threat and that a court may consider events outside the 180-day timeframe in making its determination
• reversing a FAPA restraining order in part because, although the parties had had a volatile relationship, the nature of their relationship changed once they no longer lived together, and they had very little contact and there were no further inci- dents
• noting the significance of how the parties’ relationship changed once they no longer lived together, and concluding that the evidence fell “short of what would be required to prove an imminent danger of further abuse and a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).